A股强势股池

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get data', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any return format, additional behavior, or limitations. It offers minimal insight beyond what the tool name already suggests, failing to provide meaningful behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loaded with the key action and target. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not define what constitutes a 'strong stock pool', nor does it explain how this tool relates to the similarly named stock_zt_pool_em. Without this context, an agent cannot judge when to use this tool or what to expect from the results, leaving a significant gap despite the tool's seeming simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no information about parameters; it merely names the resource. The schema already explains the date format, default behavior, and limit range, so the description does not need to compensate. This is an acceptable passing score for coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves Chinese A-share market strong stock pool data with a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('强势股池数据'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool stock_zt_pool_em, which appears to be a related but different pool (regular limit-up pool vs strong pool). Thus it meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' criterion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer 'strong stock pool' over the regular limit-up pool or other stock data tools. The name implies distinction, but the description itself gives no usage context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.